It's time for a verdict and acceptance
Published: 21 Feb. 2025, 00:00
The witness testimonies in President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment trial concluded Thursday, marked by intense disputes over the truth until the very end. Now, only the final arguments from both sides and President Yoon’s closing statement remain. After one more hearing, the Constitutional Court is expected to deliver its ruling around mid-March. With the nation still reeling from the shock and turmoil of the Dec. 3 martial law declaration aftermath for nearly three months, all eyes are on the court in anxious anticipation. In the time that remains, a consensus must be reached that any decision by the court will be accepted.
The judiciary serves as the only way out of this crisis and the final safeguard, yet both President Yoon’s legal team and the National Assembly continued to clash in the Constitutional Court’s 10th hearing and in Yoon’s first criminal trial. Witnesses called before the court included Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, former First Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service Hong Jang-won and National Police Agency Commissioner General Cho Ji-ho. Prime Minister Han stated that, regarding the legality of the martial law cabinet meeting, he believed “the necessary requirements were not met.” This testimony contradicts that of former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min. President Yoon briefly appeared in court but left after five minutes, never facing Han. However, he later returned to observe the questioning of Hong.
The tension was palpable even before the trial, with both sides engaged in a war of words during press briefings. The National Assembly’s representatives declared, “The conditions for removing President Yoon from office have already been met. The entire nation witnessed the storming of the National Assembly and the insurrection unfold live — what more needs to be said?” Meanwhile, Yoon’s defense team countered, calling the impeachment grounds “completely unjustifiable” and arguing, “We will explain to the court the grave national emergency that led the president to consider martial law as a message to the public.”
Although President Yoon’s defense argues procedural unfairness, they are also utilizing an extensive range of defense mechanisms rarely seen in conventional cases. In a hearing yesterday on his request for release from detention, his lawyers argued against the legality of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) investigating charges of insurrection, challenged the indictment process after the expiration of his detention period and claimed there was no risk of evidence tampering. The prosecution rebutted, stating that all procedures had been legally validated by the court. Regarding concerns over evidence destruction, prosecutors countered, “The defendant is still the sitting president, retains the power and had appointed individuals who played key roles in the insurrection.”
President Yoon’s legal team has been raising procedural objections not only against the investigations by the CIO and the prosecution but also in the Constitutional Court’s impeachment trial and the criminal court proceedings. These claims are fueling his supporters, who continue to protest outside the homes of Constitutional Court justices and stage demonstrations against impeachment in front of the court and the judiciary. Meanwhile, on university campuses, both pro-impeachment and anti-impeachment rallies are being held simultaneously, while the political landscape remains solely focused on rallying each side’s respective base.
It is somewhat reassuring that Yoon’s lawyer, Seok Dong-hyun, stated in a press conference Wednesday that “the president will, of course, accept the Constitutional Court’s ruling.” However, he made sure his statement was conditional, as he added, “That said, we strongly urge that the decision be made in the most fair and lawful manner possible.” For the commitment to accepting the ruling to be realized, the court’s final legal judgment must be flawless, leaving no room for doubt.
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
The judiciary serves as the only way out of this crisis and the final safeguard, yet both President Yoon’s legal team and the National Assembly continued to clash in the Constitutional Court’s 10th hearing and in Yoon’s first criminal trial. Witnesses called before the court included Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, former First Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service Hong Jang-won and National Police Agency Commissioner General Cho Ji-ho. Prime Minister Han stated that, regarding the legality of the martial law cabinet meeting, he believed “the necessary requirements were not met.” This testimony contradicts that of former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min. President Yoon briefly appeared in court but left after five minutes, never facing Han. However, he later returned to observe the questioning of Hong.
The tension was palpable even before the trial, with both sides engaged in a war of words during press briefings. The National Assembly’s representatives declared, “The conditions for removing President Yoon from office have already been met. The entire nation witnessed the storming of the National Assembly and the insurrection unfold live — what more needs to be said?” Meanwhile, Yoon’s defense team countered, calling the impeachment grounds “completely unjustifiable” and arguing, “We will explain to the court the grave national emergency that led the president to consider martial law as a message to the public.”
Although President Yoon’s defense argues procedural unfairness, they are also utilizing an extensive range of defense mechanisms rarely seen in conventional cases. In a hearing yesterday on his request for release from detention, his lawyers argued against the legality of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) investigating charges of insurrection, challenged the indictment process after the expiration of his detention period and claimed there was no risk of evidence tampering. The prosecution rebutted, stating that all procedures had been legally validated by the court. Regarding concerns over evidence destruction, prosecutors countered, “The defendant is still the sitting president, retains the power and had appointed individuals who played key roles in the insurrection.”
President Yoon’s legal team has been raising procedural objections not only against the investigations by the CIO and the prosecution but also in the Constitutional Court’s impeachment trial and the criminal court proceedings. These claims are fueling his supporters, who continue to protest outside the homes of Constitutional Court justices and stage demonstrations against impeachment in front of the court and the judiciary. Meanwhile, on university campuses, both pro-impeachment and anti-impeachment rallies are being held simultaneously, while the political landscape remains solely focused on rallying each side’s respective base.
It is somewhat reassuring that Yoon’s lawyer, Seok Dong-hyun, stated in a press conference Wednesday that “the president will, of course, accept the Constitutional Court’s ruling.” However, he made sure his statement was conditional, as he added, “That said, we strongly urge that the decision be made in the most fair and lawful manner possible.” For the commitment to accepting the ruling to be realized, the court’s final legal judgment must be flawless, leaving no room for doubt.
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)